“Spanglish”: Bringing the academic debate into the - E

E-JournALL, EuroAmerican Journal of Applied Linguistics and Languages
Special Issue, Volume 2, Issue 2, December 2015, pages 50-66
ISSN 2376-905X
DOI http://dx.doi.org/10.21283/2376905X.3.51
www.e-journall.org
“Spanglish”: Bringing the academic debate into the classroom.
Towards critical pedagogy in Spanish heritage instruction
LINA M. REZNICEK-PARRADO*1
University of California, Davis
Received 15 May 2015; received in revised form 12 November 2015; accepted 15 November 2015
EN
ABSTRACT
The academic debate that seeks to categorize Spanish spoken in the United States is controversial. The North American
Spanish Language Academy publication Hablando bien se entiende la gente, a reference guide for U.S. Spanish speakers, was
the catalyst for a series of debates by academics holding one of two main stances: a) that Spanish in the United States is a
universal language which should be devoid of excessive influence of English (Piña-Rosales, Covarrubias, Dumitrescu, & ANLE,
2014); and b) that Spanish in the United States is the reflection of its coexistence with English (Lynch & Potowski, 2014). While
this academic conversation is important to the field, the debate has to be brought to the speakers themselves. This study
presents a quantitative analysis of a judgment task completed by young heritage speakers of Spanish and a qualitative analysis
of short-answer surveys. Results show that, despite participants’ high reported use of “Spanglish,” they vehemently reject its use
in the academic context. This strong disconnect between practice and attitude raises serious concerns and has significant
implications for pedagogy.
Key words: SPANISH HERITAGE LANGUAGE INSTRUCTION, SPANGLISH, CRITICAL PEDAGOGY
ES El debate académico generado en torno a la categorización del español hablado en los Estados Unidos es controvertido. La
publicación por parte de la Academia Norteamericana de la Lengua Española de Hablando bien se entiende la gente, una
guía de consulta para los hablantes de español estadounidenses, catalizó discusiones académicas al tomar una postura
dentro de las dos principales sobre la mesa: a) que el español en los Estados Unidos es una lengua universal que debe estar
desprovista de la influencia excesiva del inglés (Piña-Rosales, Covarrubias, Dumitrescu, & ANLE, 2014); y b) que el español
en los Estados Unidos es el reflejo de su coexistencia con el inglés (Lynch & Potowski, 2014). A pesar de la importancia de
esta conversación académica, en el debate deben ser partícipes los propios hablantes. El presente estudio muestra un
análisis cuantitativo de una tarea de juicio completada por hablantes jóvenes de español como lengua de herencia y un
análisis cualitativo de un sondeo de respuesta breve. Los resultados muestran que, a pesar del elevado uso del spanglish del
que informaron los participantes, estos rechazan vehementemente su uso en el contexto académico. Esta gran desconexión
entre práctica y actitud conlleva serios planteamientos e implicaciones importantes en la práctica pedagógica.
Palabras clave: DIDÁCTICA DEL ESPAÑOL COMO LENGUA DE HERENCIA, SPANGLISH, PEDAGOGÍA CRÍTICA
IT Il dibattito accademico che cerca di categorizzare lo spagnolo parlato negli Stati Uniti è piuttosto controverso. La pubblicazione
da parte della ANLE di Hablando bien se entiende la gente, una guida per gli ispanofoni statunitensi, ha scatenato una serie di
dibattiti tra gli accademici, che si dividono su due posizioni principali: a) lo spagnolo negli Stati Uniti è una lingua universale
che dovrebbe essere priva di una influenza eccessiva dell'inglese (Piña-Rosales, Covarrubias, Dumitrescu, & ANLE, 2014); b)
lo spagnolo negli Stati Uniti è il riflesso della sua coesistenza con l'inglese (Lynch & Potowski, 2014). Nonostante questo
dibattito accademico sia importante, è necessario, però, che coinvolga direttamente i parlanti. Questo studio presenta quindi
un'analisi quantitativa di un judgment task completato da parlanti di spagnolo come lingua ereditaria e un'analisi qualitativa di
un sondaggio a risposta breve. I risultati dimostrano che, nonostante il largo uso dello "Spanglish" dichiarato dai partecipanti,
questi ultimi si rifiutano categoricamente di utilizzarlo in contesto accademico. Questa grande discordanza tra pratica e
atteggiamento solleva serie preoccupazioni e comporta implicazioni significative per la pedagogia.
Parole chiave: DIDATTICA DELLO SPAGNOLO COME LINGUA EREDITARIA, SPANGLISH, PEDAGOGIA CRITICA
* Contact: [email protected]
© Reznicek-Parrado 2015. This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
“SPANGLISH”: BRINGING THE ACADEMIC DEBATE INTO THE CLASSROOM
1. Background and significance
1.1. Demographic shift: Implications for education
In March 2014, the U.S. Census, along with the Pew Hispanic Center for research, announced that
Latin@s now comprise the largest ethnic group in California, surpassing whites (Pew Hispanic Center, 2014).
Even though they represent 39% of the population—that is, not the majority per se—this constitutes a
significant demographic milestone, relevant for virtually all spheres of public interest statewide. Now
referred to as the “majority-minority” in California, Latin@s are slowly but increasingly participating in and
thereby shaping the future of policies, institutions, politics, and education in that state.
Additionally, in 2014 it was reported that more than 50 million Latin@s had been counted by the
previous Census as residing in the United States, thus establishing this group as the second-largest racial or
ethnic group in the country (Pew Hispanic Center, 2014a). Interestingly, one of the most salient
characteristics of this fast-growing community is that Latin@s are the youngest of the major racial and ethnic
groups in the US. The median age of Latin@s, 27 years, is a full decade lower than that of the United States
overall (Pew Hispanic Center, 2014a).
According to the Pew Hispanic Center’s 2013 National Survey of Latin@s, about 35 million Latin@s
residing in the U.S. report speaking Spanish at home. About 38% say Spanish is their dominant language,
compared with 25% who are English-dominant and 36% who are bilingual, (Pew Hispanic Center, 2014a).
Additionally, Latin@ college enrollment reached a record high in 2012, with seven in ten (or 69%) Latin@
high school graduates enrolled in college, two percentage points higher than the rate (67%) among their nonLatin@ white counterparts (Pew Hispanic Center, 2014b). As more of these young, Spanish-speaking Latin@s
are entering institutions of Higher Education, Spanish enrollments across the board are also becoming the
most numerous, comprising the highest number of student enrollments among departments of language and
literature nationwide. The implications of this demographic milestone for institutions of education in the
country and in the state of California, in particular, are, therefore, undoubtedly relevant.
1.2. The North American Spanish Language Academy (ANLE)
The North American Spanish Language Academy (ANLE per its abbreviation in Spanish) was founded
in 1973, perhaps in part due to the long-lasting and prevalent presence of Latin@s in the United States, as
well as the conceptualization of their language as relevant to the community of speakers and the U.S.
population at large. The youngest of 22 Spanish Academies worldwide, the ANLE is part of a network of
language academies overseen by the Spanish Royal Academy, or RAE (Real Academia Española), as it is
known in the Spanish-speaking world. The RAE was founded in 1713 under the reign of Felipe V with the
overall objective of overseeing the standardization of the Spanish language, and the clarification of structural
norms following the language spoken by “cultured speakers”. Over the years, the RAE has clarified that it
seeks to adapt its role based on and in response to the “unity of language within its diversity” (Real Academia
Española, 2012). Consequently, its dictionaries now include americanisms and anglicisms, among other
variants.
As the RAE’s youngest academy, the ANLE states that one of its missions is to “foresee that, while it
can be adapted based on the needs of particular speakers, the use of the [Spanish] North American variety 2
does not affect the unity and comprehension of the language within the Hispanic context” (Academia
Norteamericana de la Lengua, 2014, my translation). It is essential to note that the ANLE is only the second
Spanish Academy, besides the Philippine Academy of the Spanish Language, to exist in a country where
Spanish is neither the language of the majority nor the language of prestige, thus representing a
sociolinguistic context which makes the ANLE’s mission much more complex than its statement would lead
one to believe.
1.2.1. “Hablando bien se entiende la gente”
In 2010, the ANLE published the first volume of a book entitled Hablando bien se entiende la gente, a
short collection of idiomatic expressions used by U.S. Latin@s (Piña-Rosales, Badajoz, & ANLE, 2010). The
book presents a series of normative advice that would, according to the authors, enable the speaker to hablar
The original statement uses the word hispanounidense to refer to the Spanish variant used within the United States,
reflecting ANLE’s assumption that Spanish spoken in the United States is indeed a separate variant of the Spanish
language.
2
E-JournALL 2(2) (2015), pp. 50-66
51
REZNICEK-PARRADO
bien, or “speak well” as well as a list of “incorrect” expressions, which reflect the influence of English on the
Spanish language. It does so through a jocose dialogue between two characters, one who offers advice and
encourages the interlocutor not to mix Spanish and English if he or she wishes to be understood. In the spring
of 2014, the ANLE published a second volume of the same book (Piña-Rosales Covarrubias, Dumitrescu, &
ANLE, 2014).
Not surprisingly, the publication of the ANLE’s book sparked much controversy among sociolinguists.
In a book review published by Hispania, Andrew Lynch and Kim Potowski (2014) criticized the publication
for its lack of sociolinguistic methodology, challenging the ANLE’s mission to foster authentic bilingualism.
Among their arguments, they noted the importance of validating the words and expressions included in the
book as constructions that are created by speakers not simply as a result of pedantry or lack of knowledge,
but as necessary to the development of a bicultural reality, especially as it concerns the context of the US.
Additionally, the authors criticized the fact that the book ignores the sociocultural reality of Spanish speakers
in the US, namely, the lack of formal education in Spanish offered by most institutions of secondary and postsecondary education in the US, the hegemony of English in most public spheres within the United States, and
other sociopolitical and economic challenges. In the authors’ view, Spanish as it is spoken in the US must
begin to be seen in a positive light, and should not be solely viewed as something that must be “corrected”,
especially now that language shift is happening faster than ever before.
The academic debate that Lynch and Potowski (2014) present against the ANLE’s publication is
certainly important to the field and to the future of Spanish in the United States. Additionally, it is the
understanding of the present study that the position of speakers themselves within this debate must
contribute to this important discussion and also be integrated in Heritage Language instruction. It is helpful
to turn to the constructs behind Critical Language Study and Critical Pedagogy to demonstrate why it is
important to include the voices of speakers themselves in this academic debate.
1.3. Critical Language Study and Critical Pedagogy: General theoretical constructs
Critical Language Study, from which Critical Pedagogy stems, brings the political nature of language
to the foreground. Norman Fairclough (1989) coined the term Critical Language Study (CLS) to refer to the
inevitable interrelationship between language and the social, emphasizing the fact that it is through language
that power and ideologies are enacted across all spheres of society. Highlighting the fact that it is easy to
underestimate the role of language within the production, maintenance and changes of power relations, one
of Fairclough’s main objectives is to create a critical consciousness among those who study language from any
theoretical framework. Going beyond our mission as language instructors to build linguistic proficiency, the
repercussions of a critical examination of language become quite relevant within our pedagogical objectives;
as language teachers, ignoring the social possibilities and repercussions that are involved in our students’
development would mean ignoring one of the most important contributions of our profession.
It is not challenging, either, to conceive of the ways in which this critical notion of language is
relevant when developing pedagogical models for heritage language speakers, who, to a large extent, come
from working-class, low-income families that have had few opportunities for education and that speak
stigmatized varieties of Spanish (Beaudrie, Ducar, & Potowski, 2014). Not including a critical approach in our
pedagogy would be tantamount to depoliticizing the conceptualization of education—a depoliticization that
has been challenged by many scholars who explicitly adopt a critical approach to education (Freire, 1973;
Giroux, 1991, 2000; Walsh, 1991).
In describing the critical implications of education, Paulo Freire (1973) compares the notion of
“adaptation” to that of “integration”. He defines “integration” as the ability to not only adapt to a social
system, but to make decisions and transform one’s reality: “[When] a man loses his ability to make decisions
and is subject to the decisions of others, when his decisions are not his anymore but are result of external
prescriptions, that man is no longer integrated” (Freire, 1973, p. 3). In this sense, when heritage language
students arrive in college, they must be given access to critical pedagogy as it allows them, through a process
of integration, to make their own decisions throughout their development as members of society and
speakers of Spanish. As Leeman (2005, p. 36) puts it when discussing Critical Pedagogy among Spanish
heritage language speaker in particular,
[I]n order to help students critically understand their own lives and worlds, develop agency
in making their own language choices, and participate in the building of a more democratic
society, educators must make the relationship between language and sociopolitical issues
52
E-JournALL 2(2) (2015), pp. 50-66
“SPANGLISH”: BRINGING THE ACADEMIC DEBATE INTO THE CLASSROOM
explicit, provide opportunities for students to examine and interrogate dominant linguistic
practices and hierarchies, and encourage students to explore the ways language can be used
to perform a wide range of social functions and identity work.
The importance of incorporating Critical Pedagogy in diverse and multilingual classrooms has been
called for by a myriad of researchers in the area of language education. In a review of the current state of
teacher-oriented literature, Palmer and Martínez (2013) contend that ignoring the politics of language diverts
attention from some of the more pressing challenges of educating bilingual or multilingual learners,
“challenges that lie not in the learners themselves but in the language ideologies and normative discourses
that permeate classrooms, schools, and the surrounding society” (p. 273). Guadalupe Valdés and colleagues
bring to light the ways in which linguistic ideologies can permeate even in contexts in which non-hegemonic
practices are discouraged, such as departments of Spanish in higher education (Valdés, González, García, &
Márquez, 2003), highlighting the importance of making these ideologies explicit in the classroom. In a recent
piece, Martínez (forthcoming) stresses the importance of addressing the cultural and social issues that go
beyond individual learners and individual proficiencies if Heritage Language instruction wishes to inspire
social change beyond the classroom (for more work on critical pedagogy in the Spanish heritage language
context see Colombi, 2015; Leeman, Rabin & Román-Mendoza, 2011; Martínez, 2003; Villa, 1996, 2002).
Taking into consideration the highly politicized academic debate triggered by the ANLE publication,
the arguments against this publication presented by Potowski and Lynch, and the relevance of Critical
Pedagogy in order to make this markedly controversial, sociopolitical conversation explicit in the classroom,
this study was conceived in order to gain a deeper understanding of the linguistic perceptions, attitudes and
judgments that speakers hold around the use of Spanish and English interchangeably. Additionally, this study
aims to consider the pedagogical implications of students’ perceptions and attitudes.
2. The study
This study examines heritage language speakers’ general perceptions and attitudes about the overall
system of “Spanglish” as well as specific judgments of particular forms of U.S. Spanish. “Spanglish” is often
referred to as the practice of “code-mixing” or “code-switching” between Spanish and English and has been
studied extensively by researchers who agree that it is a language practice that bilingual Latin@ students use
in complex ways in order to make meaning (Gumperz, 1982; Poplack, 1980; Zentella, 1997). Besides codeswitching, the term “Spanglish” has also been used to refer to related language contact phenomena, such as
the use of linguistics calques, borrowings and linguistic extensions (Potowski, 2011). The use of the term
“Spanglish” continues to be debated, with some researchers advocating for using the term in a positive light
(Zentella, 1997) and others rejecting the use of the term, holding that it inaccurately and even pejoratively
refers to the varieties of Spanish spoken in the United States (Lipski, 2008; Otheguy & Stern, 2010).
Even though there continues to be controversy around what “Spanglish” is and how it should be
regarded in the field, for the purposes of this paper Potowski’s (2011) definition was adopted, whereby this
phenomenon is marked by three primary language contact characteristics: code-switching, lexical
borrowings, and grammatical extensions (also known as calques).
The goal of the study is to shed light on how actual speakers’ attitudes fit into the larger academic
debate currently taking place on Spanish as it is spoken in the United States and their actual linguistic uses of
Spanish and English. It also examines students’ attitudes when considering these same forms of U.S. Spanish
within the academic context (i.e., in the classroom). In order to do so, the study was carried out among
speakers who are members of an academic community in a large northern California university. This campus
community has a diverse curriculum within its Spanish Department, including a three-level program in
Spanish designed exclusively for U.S. Spanish heritage speakers. This program has an important history and
today attracts a significant amount of undergraduate students who are heritage speakers of Spanish and who
wish to develop academic skills in their native tongue. The program offers courses specifically designed for
over 100 heritage speakers of Spanish at the intermediate and advanced levels. Over 50% of undergraduate
students who identify Spanish as their major at this institution are U.S. Latin@s and almost all of them enroll
in the Native Speakers track before taking more advanced linguistics or literature courses (see Blake &
Colombi, 2013, for more statistical information).
Twelve students between the ages of 16 and 18 years who were enrolled in the Native Speakers
Program participated in this study. After being authorized by the program director as well as by class
E-JournALL 2(2) (2015), pp. 50-66
53
REZNICEK-PARRADO
instructors, class visits were completed to recruit participants and a sign-up sheet was distributed. The
Principal Investigator contacted students via e-mail at a later date with information on how to participate in
the study.
2.1. Study methods
The methods for the present study are designed in such a way that data could be analyzed both
qualitatively and quantitatively. In the first part of the study, participants completed a brief open-ended
questionnaire administered on-line through Google Forms. Here, information on the linguistic background of
the participant was collected, including information such as the city in which the participant spent most of
their childhood years, home language use, language preferences, perceived language use, and attitudes
towards the use of Spanish and English interchangeably. Additionally, participants were asked to comment on
how they believe the use of Spanish and English interchangeably should be labeled in order to, in part, echo
the famous 2006 debate of the label “Spanglish” by Ana Celia Zentella and Ricardo Otheguy3.
Lastly, speakers were asked to comment on the linguistic behavior of their peers as well as of their Spanish
instructors during the time in which they were enrolled in a Spanish course for Native Speakers, and
questions on the validity of said behavior followed4.
In the second part of the study, participants completed a brief judgment task also on a Google Form
format in which they rated judgment tokens of lexical items found in U.S. Spanish based on 3 categories: use
of English words (lexical borrowing), lexical extensions, and grammatical extensions (calques). Participants
were asked to note whether they used the particular token when speaking informally, whether they would
consider saying it, whether they considered it acceptable for others to say the token, or whether they
considered the token to be incorrect. Ten tokens for each category were included, including ten distractors of
tokens showing no influence of English5.
2.2. Results and analysis
2.2.1. Qualitative data (first set): Vitality of the Spanish language
Content analysis was performed for data collected through the questionnaire. In this first qualitative
analysis set, the high vitality of Spanish among the study’s participants is demonstrated:
Figure 1. Answers to the question: “Which language did you
speak first, Spanish or English?”
In February of 2006 at a national conference on Spanish in the United States in Coral Gables, FL, linguists Zentella and
Otheguy debated whether the Spanish spoken by heritage speakers should be referred to as “Spanglish” or not. Zentella
defended the use of the term and advocated for the validation and embracing of Spanglish, arguing that it is an
opportunity for young U.S. Spanish speakers to perform an identity widely misunderstood by the greater U.S. community.
Otheguy, on the other hand, rejected the term “Spanglish” and advocated for its eradication, arguing that the Spanish
spoken in the United States is nothing more than a popular variety of the language, just as there is a popular variety of
Mexican Spanish, Colombian Spanish, etc.; and that using the term is problematic in that it is perceived very negatively by
non-speakers and speakers alike as well as having a negative connotation that indexes a certain lack of knowledge of the
general system of Spanish (when speakers say “I don’t speak Spanish, I speak Spanglish”, for example).
4 To see a complete version of the survey, please refer to Appendix A.
5 For a complete version of the judgment task, please refer to Appendix B.
3
54
E-JournALL 2(2) (2015), pp. 50-66
“SPANGLISH”: BRINGING THE ACADEMIC DEBATE INTO THE CLASSROOM
Figure 2. Answers to the question: “Do you speak Spanish at home
with your parents, siblings or any other member of your family?”
These figures show that all participants are in very close contact with Spanish through their personal
networks throughout childhood and at home. All participants except for one report Spanish as being their
first language, and all participants report actively speaking Spanish at home with parents and siblings.
Spanish, then, is very much salient in the lives of the great majority of these young participants. The next two
survey questions, “Do you sometimes use Spanish and English interchangeably?” and “Do you know other
people who use Spanish and English interchangeably?” illustrate even more striking results, as all
participants (100%) reported practicing forms of Spanish and English interchangeably as well as knowing at
least another person who actively engages in the linguistic phenomena used here to describe “Spanglish”.
In order to inquire further into participants’ perceptions and attitudes towards the use of
“Spanglish,” qualitative analysis was completed through coding for overall themes around the topic of what
“hearing another person use Spanish and English interchangeably makes you feel”. After initial, axial and
selective coding, three overall themes were extracted from the data: negative attitudes towards “Spanglish,”
positive attitudes towards “Spanglish,” and feelings of identification with the use of “Spanglish.” Responses
that included such notions as “disappointment,” “annoyance,” “bother,” and “incorrectness” were coded as
negative attitudes. Notions such as “knowledge of both Spanish and English,” “enjoyment,” and “correctness”
were coded as positive attitudes. Lastly, responses that included any indication of the participant connecting
with the practice of using “Spanglish” through identification of personal practice were included in the third
category, “feelings of identification with the use of “Spanglish.”
Table 1
Students’ responses to: “Explain what hearing another person use
Spanish and English interchangeable makes you feel.”
Negative attitudes towards “Spanglish”
36.9% (n=7)
Positive attitudes towards “Spanglish”
26.3% (n=5)
Feelings of identification with the use of “Spanglish”
42.1% (n=8)
The above table shows an interesting result, as more participants expressed negative attitudes
towards the practice of using Spanish and English interchangeably than those who expressed positive
attitudes. This is striking, given the high vitality of Spanish reported in the first part of the survey. When
taking a deeper look at the data, however, and especially at the instances coded as “negative attitudes
towards “Spanglish”, an interesting subtheme emerged. Out of the 6 instances of “negative attitudes” coded, 4
of them included specific examples of how these attitudes are reflected on speakers, given the fact that they
themselves take part in the practice of using Spanish and English interchangeably. In other words,
participants who negatively judged using “Spanglish” also mentioned that they themselves use this practice,
thus imposing this negative judgment on themselves. Some examples of this include the following instances:
E-JournALL 2(2) (2015), pp. 50-66
55
REZNICEK-PARRADO
“No es una forma correcta de expresarnos . . . (pero) yo también lo hago muchas veces”
(It is not a correct way of communicating . . . (but) I also do it many times)
“Yo pienso que es correcto pero es mejor tratar de hablar el lenguaje correcto”
(I think it is correct but it is best to try and speak correctly)
“ . . .me molesta que la persona no pueda hablar con fluidez en una sola lengua (y en este disgusto me incluyo a
mí también”
( . . . it bothers me that the person cannot speak fluently in one language (and I include myself in that
annoyance)
This first set of qualitative analysis shows the emergence of an interesting paradox among
participants, in which their attitudes and perceptions about a practice in which they heavily engage (namely,
using Spanish and English interchangeably) are deemed unacceptable, not by an outsider, but by participants
themselves. This shows the powerful potential of outside negative linguistic ideologies such as those
presented by ANLE of permeating individuals’ perceptions of their own language repertoires, eventually
becoming internalized and stated as truth.
2.2.2. Quantitative data: “Spanglish” judgment task
In order to take a look at participants’ perceived use of “Spanglish” using a quantitative lens for
comparison, a grammatical judgment task was administered. Participants were asked to judge 40 tokens that
included three of the phenomena found in “Spanglish” as per Potowski’s definition, as well as a distractor
category of no use of English, and rate it based on whether they considered the token correct and could
imagine saying it, or not, on a scale from 1 (the highest score in terms of acceptability), to 4. This task was
developed in order to establish which of these language contact phenomena was most accepted or rejected
and least accepted or rejected by speakers (as represented by the participants in this study). Below is a
sample of the judgment task prompt followed by examples for each category included in the task as well as
the means and standard deviations of acceptability ratings given across all participants for each category—
lexical borrowing, lexical extensions, calques, and no use of English:
Table 2
Sample of grammaticality judgment task and examples of tokens
For this brief task, please carefully read each sentence per section. Do you consider it as correct?
For each sentence, please rate it from 1 to 4 according to the following judgment scale:
1 I would say this when speaking informally with my friends or family
2 I’m not sure if I would say this or not
3 I wouldn’t say this, but if someone else says it, I would think it’s fine
4 I would never say this, and if someone else said it, I think it is incorrect
Examples of tokens per category:
Lexical borrowing: ¿Tienes un grill para cocinar la carne?
Lexical extension: En el negocio de mi tía se alteran pantalones
Grammatical extension or calque: Mañana van a inspectar el sistema de aire acondicionado
No use of English: ¿Te dieron una multa por exceso de velocidad?
Table 3
Means and standard deviations for all categories
Number of
Category
Mean SD
cases
Lexical borrowing 2.058 0.614
120
Lexical extension 2.491
0.59
120
Calques
2.475 0.702
120
No use of English
1.57 0.479
120
56
E-JournALL 2(2) (2015), pp. 50-66
“SPANGLISH”: BRINGING THE ACADEMIC DEBATE INTO THE CLASSROOM
After initial analysis and exploration of the data, the means and standard deviations of all categories
show no significant outliers. The “No use of English” category, as expected, shows the lowest mean and
standard deviation, acting as a control category. Additionally, in order to compare the significance of
rejection/acceptance of each category, a one-way ANOVA statistical test was completed, including a null
hypothesis test with alpha = .05.
Table 4
Results of one-way ANOVA for all judgment task categories
Source of Variation
SS
df
MS
F
68.523
3 22.841 63.100
Between groups
0.362
Within groups (error) 172.303 476
240.827 479
Total
Note: p = 0.014, p≤ 0.5
This quantitative analysis shows that all categories of “Spanglish” were mostly accepted across all
participants given the fact that the means for lexical borrowing, lexical extension, and calques stayed closest
to the highest scores on the judgment task (between 1 and below 3). No category showed a consistent
rejection pattern or average score of three or above. Furthermore, and despite this study’s small sample
limitation, the results on Table 4 show that judgment differences between categories are statistically
significant, demonstrating that participants in this sample do significantly see themselves using each and
every one of these language contact phenomena as implied by their predominantly high scores for tokens of
all categories (excluding the “No use of English” category). This analysis, therefore, shows that these
particular participants are certainly engaging with these phenomena at different levels in significant ways.
2.2.3. Qualitative data (second set): Attitudes in the classroom
As a final piece to the analysis, a second qualitative component was completed based on the
information gathered with the same group of participants through the same questionnaire. This time,
however, survey questions revolved around what happens inside of the classroom, specifically the Spanish
for Heritage Speakers classroom. Participants were asked to provide their observations about their teachers’
language use (whether instructors engaged or not in using Spanish and English interchangeably when
teaching), as well as their personal opinions about what instructors should be using when teaching. For both
questions (“What did your teacher speak when teaching the Spanish for Heritage Speakers class?” and “What
should your instructor use and/or should s/he use Spanish and English interchangeably?”) two overall
themes emerged: only Spanish, and Spanish and English.
Table 5
Students’ response on instructor’s use of HL
Reported
Percentage
language use
Spanish and English
62%
Only Spanish
38%
Table 6
Participants' opinions on instructor’s language use
Opinions on
Percentage
language use
Spanish and English
54%
Only Spanish
46%
Given the quantitative analysis in section 2.2.2 showing high engagement by participants in using
“Spanglish”, the initial qualitative results in this second set, which show greater percentages for the use of
E-JournALL 2(2) (2015), pp. 50-66
57
REZNICEK-PARRADO
Spanish and English interchangeably within the classroom, are not surprising. However, the subthemes with
the highest percentages that emerged within these themes show yet another interesting paradox: 3 out of the
7 participants who reported that both Spanish and English were used in class also report unsolicited negative
judgments towards this practice. Additionally, 4 out of the 7 participants who reported that instructors
should use Spanish and English in the HL classrooms provide unsolicited specifications that this should only
happen when the instructor wishes to clarify the material or make sure there is no confusion among students.
Some examples of the first subtheme which illustrate unsolicited negative judgments based on the question
“What did your instructor use in the Spanish HL class?” are as follows:
“(Mi instructor) muy raramente (utilizaba el español y el inglés a la misma vez) lo cual veo como algo positivo
porque no es una forma formal de hablar”
(My instructor) rarely (used Spanish and English interchangeably) which I consider to be positive because it
is not a formal way of speaking.
“Mi maestro siempre utilizó el español; solo usaba inglés para dar anuncios. Me gustó porque era clase de
español y es lo que se debe de usar”
(My instructor always used Spanish; he only used English to make announcements. I liked it because that’s
the way it should be).
Some examples of the second subtheme which illustrate examples of unsolicited specifications of when to use
Spanish and English interchangeably based on the question “What should your instructor use in class? Should
s/he use Spanish and English interchangeably?” are as follows:
“(El instructor debe utilizar español e inglés) pero solo cuando haya dudas en clase”
(The instructor should only use Spanish and English when students have further questions)
“(El instructor debe utilizar español e inglés) cuando un estudiante no entiende las instrucciones en español”
(The instructor should only use Spanish and English when a student doesn’t understand instructions in
Spanish).
As these examples show, the majority of participants who report both that instructors used Spanish
and English interchangeably as well as that instructors should use this same practice, reported unsolicited
negative judgments towards the practice of using “Spanglish” as well as very specific limitations to where this
practice fits within the classroom.
The quantitative analysis explained in section 2.2.2 demonstrates with statistical significance that
participants accept and actively interact with the practice of using Spanish and English interchangeably. This
interaction, along with the first qualitative data set analysis, show that Spanish has very high vitality among
this group, and that “Spanglish” is a practice very much relevant to participants themselves and their social
networks. However, in light of participants’ attitudes and perceptions and the second qualitative data set
analysis above, participants seem to agree that within the academic context, the language practices in which
they themselves report engaging, are, in great part, unacceptable. This explicit paradox emerging from the
overall analysis here presented seems to coincide in part with the academic debate presented in section 1.2.1.
Participants appear to place themselves at both ends of the debate: in terms of practice, they seem to agree
with Potowski and Lynch (2014) that “Spanglish” is a valid component that is very much present within their
linguistic repertoire. In terms of attitude, however, they seem to agree with the publication of the ANLE,
which rejects and limits the practice of “Spanglish” and negatively judges its use. This paradox raises serious
concerns and has significant implications for pedagogy—namely, the importance of nurturing a critical,
context-rich framework in our classrooms where students can engage in a serious and committed dialogue
about ideologies, power and social justice related to language (Leeman, 2005) and aimed towards social
positive change, in the same way academics do. It is for this reason that a call for Critical Pedagogy is ever so
pressing—pedagogy that can create space for students’ integration into their own academic development
through a critical view of their own linguistic practices, which undoubtedly implies a conversation about
power relations, power struggle and linguistic ideologies. It is the belief of all advocates of Critical Pedagogy
that only through the incorporation of an explicit critical view of language in the classroom that education can
58
E-JournALL 2(2) (2015), pp. 50-66
“SPANGLISH”: BRINGING THE ACADEMIC DEBATE INTO THE CLASSROOM
move from adaptation towards integration, in this case of bilingual individuals such as heritage speakers of
Spanish.
3. Conclusion: Implications for pedagogy
The rich vitality of Spanish among the young heritage speakers that participated in the present study
goes absolutely unquestioned in view of the data here presented. Unsurprisingly, given the linguistic context
of the US, these young speakers of Spanish report actively engaging in language contact phenomena, and their
interchangeable use of English and Spanish undoubtedly occupies an important place in their identity as
language users. It is therefore striking to find such a strong disconnect between their practices and attitudes,
and their blunt negative judgments about practices in which they themselves report engaging. This
disconnect raises important concerns about the pedagogical implications of this paradox, including the ways
in which speakers’ internalized ideologies seem to be going unquestioned in the classroom and the negative
repercussions of this in terms of students’ linguistic performance, identity, and self-value.
The paradox here evident is ultimately a political issue about language. The negative judgments that
participants express about their own linguistic practices may be a sign of linguistic insecurity, which can be
the product of linguistic ideologies that they may have been exposed to and internalized, especially in the
academic context or by outsiders, such as the ANLE. In this way, the results of this study call for the inclusion
of Critical Pedagogy, which seeks to bring the political to the classroom in order to nurture serious dialogue
about the political implications of language, especially as it concerns speakers themselves. When pedagogy is
decontextualized from its sociopolitical context, the social influences and cultural diversity that surround
language use risk being completely lost (Canagarajah, 2002).
The participants of this study, all Spanish heritage speakers themselves, seem to have internalized a
perspective that views difference as “deficit” or “estrangement” instead of a resource (Canagarajah, 2002).
However,
Multilingual students do—and can—use their background as a stepping-stone to master
academic discourses. Their values can function as a source of strength in their writing
experience, enabling them to transfer many skills from their traditions of vernacular
communication. (Canagarajah, 2002, p. 13)
There is no doubt that Spanish, just as any other language, is the reflection of lexical, grammatical
and discursive conventions native to a vast variety of communities and, as such, involves a conversation
about diversity and power. How then are we as instructors motivating our students to develop a view of
Spanish as a dynamic system that is consistently shifting as new meanings emerge within the people who
speak it? How are we motivating our students to engage in the highly political conversation that involves the
question of who speaks a hybrid version of a language, and who does not? Much has been studied in terms of
the written and oral proficiencies of our students. However, little attention has been given to the larger
political context of Spanish in the US, as illustrated by the academic debate on “Spanglish”, and especially to
the ways in which incorporating political linguistic debates in the classroom can benefit our student’s own
critical thinking about their language use. Indeed, it is time to bring the political into the classroom; it is time
to bring the academic debate about Spanish in the US to Spanish speakers in the US themselves.
References
ANLE, Academia Norteamericana de la Lengua Española (2014). Nuestra misión. Retrieved from
http://www.anle.us/87/Nuestra-mision.html
Beaudrie, Sara, Ducar, Cynthia, & Potowski, Kim (2014). Heritage language teaching: Research and practice.
Columbus, Ohio: McGraw-Hill Education.
Blake, Robert, & Colombi, María Cecilia (2013). La enseñanza del español para hispanohablantes: Un
programa. El español en Estados Unidos: E pluribus unum? Enfoques multidisciplinarios (pp. 291). New
York, New York: Academia norteamericana de la lengua.
E-JournALL 2(2) (2015), pp. 50-66
59
REZNICEK-PARRADO
Canagarajah, A. Suresh (2002). Critical academic writing and multilingual students. Ann Arbor, Michigan:
University of Michigan Press.
Colombi, María Cecilia (2015). Academic and cultural literacy for heritage speakers of Spanish: A case study of
Latin@ students in California. Linguistics and Education, 32(Part A), 5-15.
Fairclough, Norman (1989). Language and power. London, United Kingdom: Longman.
Freire, Paulo (1973). Education for critical consciousness. New York, New York: Seabury Press.
Giroux, Henry A. (1991). Series introduction: Rethinking the pedagogy of voice, difference, and cultural
struggle. In Catherine E. Walsh (Ed.), Pedagogy and the struggle for voice: Issues of language, power
and schooling for Puerto Ricans (pp. xv-xxvii). New York, New York: Bergin & Garvey.
Gumperz, John J. (1982). Conversational code-switching. In John J. Gumperz (Ed.), Discourse strategies (pp.
59–99). Cambridge, United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press.
Leeman, Jennifer (2005). Engaging critical pedagogy: Spanish for native speakers. Foreign Language Annals,
20(1), 35-45.
Leeman, Jennifer, Rabin, Lisa, & Román-Mendoza, Esperanza (2011). Critical pedagogy beyond the classroom
walls: Community service-learning and Spanish heritage language education. Heritage Language
Journal, 8(3)
Lipski, John M. (2008). Varieties of Spanish in the United States. Washington, District of Columbia: Georgetown
University Press.
Lynch, Andrew, & Potowski, Kim (2014). La valoracion del habla bilingü e en los Estados Unidos:
Fundamentos sociolingü ísticos y pedagogicos en Hablando bien se entiende la gente. Hispania, 97(1),
32-46.
Martínez, Glenn A. (forthcoming). Goals and beyond in HL education: From competencies to capabilities. In
Marta Fairclough & Sara Beaudrie (Eds.), Innovative Approaches in Heritage Language Teaching.
Martínez, Glenn A. (2003). Classroom-based dialect awareness in heritage language instruction: A critical
applied linguistic approach. Heritage Language Journal 1(1), 1-14.
Otheguy, Ricardo, & Stern, Nancy (2010). On so-called Spanglish. International Journal of Bilingualism, 15(1),
85-100.
Palmer, Deborah, & Martínez, Ramón Antonio (2013). Teacher agency in bilingual spaces. A fresh look at
preparing teachers to educate latina/o bilingual children. Review of Research in Education, 37(1),
269-297.
Pew Hispanic Center (2014). In 2014, Latinos will surpass whites as largest racial/ethnic group in California.
Retrieved from http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2014/01/24/in-2014-latinos-will-surpasswhites-as-largest-racialethnic-group-in-california/
Pew Hispanic Center (2014a). 11 facts for National Hispanic Heritage Month. Retrieved from
http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2014/09/16/11-facts-for-national-hispanic-heritagemonth/
Pew Hispanic Center (2014b). Hispanic High School Graduates Pass Whites in Rate of College Enrollment.
Retrieved from http://www.pewhispanic.org/2013/05/09/hispanic-high-school-graduates-passwhites-in-rate-of-college-enrollment/
Piña-Rosales, Gerardo, Badajoz, Joaquín, & Academia Norteamericana de la Lengua Española (2010).
Hablando bien se entiende la gente: Consejos idiomáticos de la Academia Norteamericana de la Lengua
Española. New York, New York: Academia Norteamericana de la Lengua Española.
Piñ a-Rosales, Gerardo, Covarrubias, Jorge I., Dumitrescu, Domnița, & ANLE, Academia Norteamericana de la
Lengua Españ ola (2014). Hablando bien se entiende la gente 2: Recomendaciones idiomáticas de la
Academia Norteamericana de la Lengua Española. Doral, Florida: Santillana USA.
Poplack, Shana (1980). Sometimes I’ll start a sentence in English y termino en español: Toward a typology of
code-switching. Linguistics, 18, 581–618.
Potowski, Kim (2011). Conversaciones escritas: lectura y redacción en contexto. Hoboken, New Jersey: Wiley.
Real Academia Española (2012). Historia. Retrieved on 05/07/2014, from http://www.rae.es/lainstitucion/historia
60
E-JournALL 2(2) (2015), pp. 50-66
“SPANGLISH”: BRINGING THE ACADEMIC DEBATE INTO THE CLASSROOM
Valdés, Guadalupe, González, Sonia V., García, Diana Lopez, & Márquez, Patricio (2003). Language ideology:
The case of Spanish in departments of foreign languages. Anthropology & Education Quarterly, 34(1),
3-26.
Villa, Daniel J. (1996). Choosing a standard variety of Spanish for the instruction of Native Spanish Speakers in
the U.S. Foreign Language Annals 29(2), 191-200.
Villa, Daniel J. (2002). The sanitizing of U.S. Spanish in academia. Foreign Language Annals 35(2), 222-230.
Walsh, Catherine (1991). Pedagogy and the struggle for voice: Issues of language, power and schooling for
Puerto Ricans. New York, New York: Bergin & Garvey.
Zentella, Ana Celia (1997). Growing up Bbilingual: Puerto Rican children in New York. Malden, Massachussets:
Blakwell Publishers.
E-JournALL 2(2) (2015), pp. 50-66
61
REZNICEK-PARRADO
Appendix A
PARTICIPANT SURVEY
1.
¿Qué idioma hablaste primero, el español o el inglés?
a. Español
b. Inglés
c. Los dos
2.
Si hablaste español primero, ¿qué edad tenías cuando empezaste a hablar inglés?
a. Entre 1 y 6 meses
b. Entre 7 y 12 meses
c. Entre 1 y 3 años
d. Entre 4 y 10 años
e. Entre 11 y 14 años
f. Entre 15 y 20 años
g. Más de 20 años
h. N/A
3.
Si hablaste inglés primero, ¿qué edad tenías cuando empezaste a hablar español?
a. Entre 1 y 6 meses
b. Entre 6 y 12 meses
c. Entre 1 y 3 años
d. Entre 4 y 10 años
e. Entre 10 y 14 años
f. Entre 15 y 20 años
g. Más de 20 años
h. N/A
4.
¿En qué ciudad y estado pasaste la mayor parte de tu niñez?
5.
En tu casa con tus padres, hermanos u otro miembro de tu familia, ¿hablas español?
a.
b.
c.
Sí
No
Se habla tanto español como inglés
6.
¿Qué idioma te gusta hablar más, el español o el inglés?
a. Español
b. Inglés
c. Me da igual hablar los dos
7.
Si te gusta hablar más el español, el inglés o te da igual hablar los dos, ¿por qué?
62
E-JournALL 2(2) (2015), pp. 50-66
“SPANGLISH”: BRINGING THE ACADEMIC DEBATE INTO THE CLASSROOM
8.
¿A veces utilizas el español y el inglés a la misma vez?
a.
b.
c.
Sí
No
No estoy segura/o
9.
Por ejemplo, ¿tú dirías lo siguiente?: ‘I can’t porque tengo que trabajar tonight’
a. Sí
b. No
c. No estoy segura/a
10.
¿Tú dirías lo siguiente?: ‘Fue un choque para ella que yo ganara el concurso’
a.
b.
c.
Sí
No
No estoy seguro/a
11. ¿Conoces a otras personas que utilizan el español y el inglés a la misma vez? Es decir, en una misma conversación o en
una misma frase, con la misma persona, utilizando expresiones en español que vienen del inglés, etc.?
a. Sí
b. No
c. No estoy seguro/a
12. Explica qué te hace sentir o pensar cuando escuchas a otras personas utilizar el español y el inglés a la misma vez.
Algunas cosas que puedes mencionar son: si te gusta o no, si piensas que es correcto o no, si te hace pensar algo sobre
esa persona, si te identificas con esa persona o no, etc.
13. ¿Cómo se le debería llamar a eso de utilizar el español y el inglés a la misma vez? ¿Hay un nombre en específico con el
cual te refieres a esto?
14. Cuando estuviste en la clase de español para hablantes nativos, ¿tu maestra o maestro utilizaba el español y el inglés a la
misma vez? Cualquier que sea tu respuesta, explica tu opinión sobre el idioma o los idiomas que utilizaba tu maestra o
maestro en clase.
15. En tu opinión, ¿los maestros y maestras de español deberían utilizar el español y el inglés a la misma vez cuando están
enseñando? ¿Por qué sí o por qué no?
16. Por último, menciona específicamente tus razones para toma clases de español en la universidad. ¿Cuál es el objetivo?
¿Para qué tomar una clase de español? Por favor menciona tantos detalles como puedas.
E-JournALL 2(2) (2015), pp. 50-66
63
REZNICEK-PARRADO
Appendix B
JUDGMENT TASK
El español en California
Para esta pequeña prueba, lee con atención la frase que se presenta en cada sección. ¿Te parece que es una frase correcta?
Para cada oración, por favor marca el número del 1 al 4 que se acerque más a lo que te hace pensar cuando la lees en voz alta
según la siguiente escala:
1
2
3
4
Yo diría esto cuando estoy hablando informalmente con mis amigos o familia
No estoy seguro/a si diría esto o no
Yo no lo diría, pero si alguien lo dice, me parece muy bien
Nunca diría esto, y si alguien más lo dice me parece que está incorrecto
OJO: Intenta no pasar mucho tiempo en cada oración. No compares con otras frases que se parezcan a la que estás leyendo, y
no pienses en lo que “deberías” decir, si no en lo que dirías en realidad.
________ 1. “¿Cuál es tu background?”
________ 2. “Mañana van a inspectar el sistema de aire acondicionado en mi casa, porque se dañó”
________ 3. “La operación militar necesita continuamente de backups”
________ 4. “Las escaleras mecánicas no están funcionando”
________ 5. “El fútbol es el juego nacional de muchos países”
________ 6. “No creo que llegue en tiempo, pero espérame de todas maneras”
________ 7. “¿Quieres venir a un barbecue conmigo este fin de semana?”
________ 8. “¿Me podrías sustituir hoy en el trabajo? No puedo ir, estoy enfermo”
________ 9. “Ella también actuó en la obra de teatro, pero tenía un papel menor”
________ 10. “No estoy relacionada con ella, no es mi hermana”
________ 11. “El parqueo se limita a los residentes”
________ 12. “El mouse sirve para controlar el cursor”
________ 13. “Presentó su resignación ayer”
________ 14. “Hay estudiantes que faltan mucho a clase”
________ 15. “Si no hago bien en mi examen, me van a regañar en mi casa”
________ 16. “¡Ojalá que tengas un bonito día de Thanksgiving!”
64
E-JournALL 2(2) (2015), pp. 50-66
“SPANGLISH”: BRINGING THE ACADEMIC DEBATE INTO THE CLASSROOM
________ 17. “¡Está lleno de prejuicios! ¡No tolera que nadie piense distinto a él! ¿Sabes qué? ¡Es un bigote!”
________ 18. “La populación de Estados Unidos está creciendo cada vez más”
________ 19. “¿Tienes hermanos que van al day care?”
________ 20. En tu primer año de universidad, ¿viviste en la residencia estudiantil?
________ 21. “Después de trabajar tanto, pienso retirarme a los sesenta años”
________ 22. “Me recuerdo de la última vez que fui a Los Ángeles. . .”
________ 23. “El poster dice que el hotel queda a tres millas de aquí”
________ 24. ¡Hagamos un trato!
________ 25. “Mi tío cuenta muchos chistes; es muy humorístico”
________ 26. “Este mes casi no tengo dinero. Debo pagar todos mis biles a tiempo”
________ 27. “¿Tienes un grill para cocinar la carne?”
________ 28. “Las universidades generalmente proporcionan el expediente académico de los estudiantes sin ningún costo”
________ 29. “Mi mamá me entró a la escuela cuando yo estaba muy joven”
________ 30. “Si necesitas comprar un carro, yo conozco un díler buenísimo”
________ 31. “En el negocio de sastrería de mi tía se alteran pantalones”
________ 32. “¿Te dieron una multa por exceso de velocidad?”
________ 33. “Después de graduarme de la universidad, recibí muchos complimentos de mis profesores por mi buen trabajo”
________ 34. “¿Quieres ir al centro comercial este fin de semana?”
________ 35. “Las posibilidades de que tengamos éxito son del fifty-fifty”
________ 36. “No sé qué hacer. Necesito que me avises sobre lo que debo hacer”
________ 37. “Mi tío trabaja en una agencia de seguros”
________ 38. “Mis padres quieren ampliar su casa y necesitan a un buen contractor, ¿conoces alguno?”
________ 39. “Tomamos un ferry a una de las islas”
________ 40. “Si quieres, puedes descargar música de mi iPod. Tengo mucha.”
E-JournALL 2(2) (2015), pp. 50-66
65
REZNICEK-PARRADO
Lina M. Reznicek-Parrado, University of California, Davis
[email protected]
EN Lina M. Reznicek-Parrado is Associate Instructor and Spanish Linguistics PhD student at the University of California,
Davis, where she teaches courses in Spanish writing development and Spanish for Heritage Speakers. Her research
interests center mainly on issues in Heritage Language Pedagogy, literacy in Spanish as a Heritage Language, Critical
Pedagogy, and other topics in applied sociolinguistics. Her work has appeared in other on-line journals such as The
Arizona Working Papers in Second Language Acquisition and Teaching (SLAT) and Normas. Revista de estudios
lingüísticos hispánicos.
ES Lina M. Reznicek-Parrado es profesora asociada y doctoranda en Lingüística Española en la Universidad de California,
Davis, donde imparte cursos de expresión escrita en español y de español como lengua de herencia. Sus intereses
investigadores giran principalmente en torno a la pedagogía de las lenguas de herencia, la alfabetización en español
como lengua de herencia, la pedagogía crítica y otros temas de sociolingüística aplicada. Sus trabajos han sido
publicados en otras revistas electrónicas como The Arizona Working Papers in Second Language Acquisition and
Teaching (SLAT) y Normas. Revista de estudios lingüísticos hispánicos.
IT Lina M. Reznicek-Parrado è docente associata e dottoranda di linguistica spagnola presso la University of California,
Davis, in cui tiene corsi di Sviluppo della produzione scritta in lingua spagnola e Spagnolo per parlanti ereditari. I suoi
interessi di ricerca si concentrano principalmente sui problemi riguardanti la pedagogia della lingua ereditaria,
l’alfabetizzazione dello spagnolo come lingua ereditaria, la pedagogia critica e altri temi legati alla sociolinguistica
applicata. I suoi lavori sono apparsi in altre riviste online come The Arizona Working Papers in Second Language
Acquisition and Teaching (SLAT) e Normas. Revista de estudios lingüísticos hispánicos.
66
E-JournALL 2(2) (2015), pp. 50-66

Download Report